Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (greg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-09 13:23:40

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Greg Colvin" <greg_at_c...> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > It seems a compiler for a "fast local stack" machine can simply note
> > which local variables have their address used and not keep them on the
> > fast stack. Doesn't seem all that different from using registers for
> > locals on a machine with register windows.
> That's quite different than what's asked here, though. Specifically
> note the following:
> > > > The question is: is the local (unsharable) stack a viable implementation,


> > > > and if so, can we ban sharing stack data to allow that implementation
> > > > without impacting programmers?

> A case by case evaluation by the compiler to optimize usage by
> placing certain data on this fast stack is quite different than
> blankly saying all thread stack data must be non-sharable so that
> they can be placed on such a stack.

My thinking is just that since a compiler can easily take
advantage of a fast local stack without banning shared stack
data, just as it does for registers, there is no compelling
need to inconvenience programmers.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at